Dear Editor,
I will be visiting the UK at the end of May and normally wherever I travel I take public transport. However, following several shocks where taking UK rail spontaneously (rather than being able to pre-book) resulted in eye-watering ticket charges, I have decided that, this time, I simply won't bother and will, instead, rent a car. This is most regrettable as I far prefer to ride the train.
I read about the Commons' vote on HS2 and have serious doubts about the assumption that seem to being made that high speed rail will create economic benefit: Riding HS2 will certainly be (significantly) more expensive than standard rail, so how will anyone, except those on a hefty expenses budget or receiving fat bonuses, be able to afford to use it? HS2 will end up becoming an extra dollop of luxury and convenience for those already on the "gravy train". I don't see that as helping the general economy much at all.
Why not spend the money on enhancing the current network and laying track where bottlenecks exist (i.e. create capacity rather than speed) or where a link is lacking (i.e. create accessibility and more dense coverage). And why not get to grips with excessive ticket prices? Yes, what's the point of having a rail network when a large swathe of the UK (tax-paying) public can't afford to use it?
Regards
